Family Trusts need a rethink: DPDP, PMLA rules collide with informal promoter structures

India's family businesses are entering a far messier succession era. As multi-geography assets, divergent generational risk appetites, and new disclosure norms under the DPDP Act and PMLA collide with informal promoter structures, trust architecture is being forced to evolve. But the real work lies beyond paperwork, in helping families finally have the conversations on wealth and control they have long avoided, said Abhijit Joshi, founder and managing partner of law firm Veritas Legal.

Edited excerpts:
With clients becoming increasingly sophisticated, what shifts have you observed in the way they evaluate legal counsel, and how has your firm adapted?
There is a growing demand for commercial judgment along with legal accuracy. Clients want counsel who understands the business decision behind the legal question. Often, they evaluate firms on the basis of demonstrated sector depth and matter-specific track record. There is also an increasing scrutiny on who does the work and who pitches.


Responsiveness and proactive communication are now treated as baseline expectations, not differentiators. At Veritas, we invest in sector-specific knowledge, long-standing client relationships, ensure partners remain hands-on, and build consistent thought leadership so clients experience the firm's thinking before the first meeting.

For a first-generation law firm, transitioning from a founder-driven rainmaking model to a fully institutionalised partnership is often the most difficult hurdle. What specific architectural and cultural frameworks are you putting in place today to ensure the firm's legacy outlives its founding generation?
I think acknowledging the problem is the first architectural decision. At Veritas, we transfer relationship capital by giving junior partners ownership of client relationships over time.

We are also building an AI-driven institutional knowledge infrastructure, so expertise isn't locked in the heads of senior people. For example, our precedents, matter intelligence, and regulatory knowledge are all systematically captured. Ultimately, our goal is for our clients to think of Veritas as a brand, with each person upholding the standards it represents.

With the maturation of the IBC and a growing statutory push toward institutional mediation, how is Veritas positioning its restructuring and litigation practices to advise clients as they navigate this pivot from prolonged courtroom battles to strategic, time-bound resolutions?
IBC has compressed timelines and raised the strategic stakes. Clients need counsel who understands resolution as a broader framework of commercial negotiation, not just a court process. There is also a growing importance of pre-admission advisory, where the real value is upstream, structuring positions before NCLT proceedings begin.

At Veritas, we are building capability at the intersection of restructuring, M&A, and regulatory practice.

We are also promoting cross-practice collaboration between litigation and corporate teams as a structural requirement. We have a culture of operating as a firm rather than as a team. The incentivisation to collaborate is not only in words but also in fiscal measures.

Private equity sponsors are applying unprecedented scrutiny to corporate governance, regulatory compliance, and ESG metrics at their Indian targets. How are you counselling both global PE funds and Indian promoters to bridge the widening gap between aggressive valuation expectations and the granular realities of modern due diligence?
There is an increasing trend of global PE funds arriving with standardised diligence frameworks built for mature markets, and Indian promoter reality rarely matches those templates cleanly. Most concerns sit in three areas: related-party transactions, regulatory

non-compliance that was historically tolerated, and governance gaps that promoters don't perceive as risks. There are also risks associated with the environment, corruption and insider trading that need to be flagged and addressed.

In terms of ESG, it is moving from a checkbox to deal-condition territory, especially for funds with ESG commitments.

There is also an evolution in the Counsel role- helping promoters understand what the fund's diligence flags mean commercially and helping funds understand what is structurally adjustable versus genuinely material. Valuation expectations remain aggressive, and bridging that gap requires creative structuring of insurance more than legal persuasion.


As capital becomes increasingly borderless and a new generation of promoters assumes control, what are the most complex stress points you are observing in succession planning, and how are evolving tax and regulatory landscapes altering the traditional architecture of family trusts?
I think generational transition in Indian family business is colliding with a significantly more complex tax and regulatory environment than previous generations navigated. The key stress points are multi-geography asset structures, divergent risk appetites across generations, and promoters who built informally now needing to formalise for institutional investors or listing. The DPDP Act, PMLA amendments, and beneficial ownership disclosure requirements are prompting a review of trust structures, even where succession intent hasn't changed.

The value of counsel here is beyond technical; it's about helping families have the conversations they've been avoiding, with legal structure as the forcing function.

It is also about understanding the needs and concerns of every generation and creating harmony between them. The insecurities of the older generation in transferring wealth into formal structures, and the insecurities of the next generation arising from a lack of involvement, rights, or meaningful participation until a relatively mature age, must be both acknowledged and addressed. Bridging this gap requires open and honest dialogue across generations. Only by discussing these concerns transparently and addressing the underlying insecurities can families create structures that are both effective and sustainable for the future.

Between the gradual ingress of foreign law firms and the deployment of generative AI platforms, the traditional billable-hour pyramid faces an existential threat. How will the tiering of the Indian legal market be redrawn over five years, and how does a firm like yours protect its premium pricing?
I think AI will force the market to consolidate into three tiers: global transaction enablers, commoditised AI-enabled execution, and a tier that didn’t adapt quickly enough.

One of the biggest advantages of AI is that it changes the boutique's oldest constraint: headcount is no longer the ceiling, so a 60-lawyer firm with the right infrastructure can now compete for mandates that previously required 200 people.

However, premium pricing survives where it is anchored to judgment, relationships, and sector depth, rather than to volume or process. At Veritas, instead of using AI to cut costs, we are using AI efficiency gains to buy back time for high-value advisory work. This is largely because we are positioning the technology as a quality enhancer instead of a commodity play.

In an era defined by aggressive lateral partner movements and fluid talent loyalties, how has the role of the managing partner fundamentally changed, and what is the key to aligning highly autonomous, ambitious rainmakers under a single unified culture?
I think the role of a managing partner has evolved from being the best rainmaker who also does administration. The complexity of the role now requires genuine people and process management capacity, together with a strong sense of technological advancements, a futuristic vision of law and building a pipeline towards that future.

So, in a way, the job has shifted from directing to creating conditions. For eg. one cannot instruct a partner generating significant revenue, but you can build a firm where their ambition aligns with the firm's direction. When it comes to alignment, I think it comes from giving the rainmakers institutional pride and making the firm's brand something they want to carry and not treat it as a platform they rent for some time.

This conversation around culture is built through decisions, not statements. It manifests in which clients you onboard, how you maintain relationships, how you protect junior lawyers, whether compensation truly rewards continuous learning and collaboration. Ambitious lawyers want to be part of a narrative which is beyond a profit share.

With technology, AI, and alternative legal service providers reshaping the industry, what do you believe the law firm of the future will look like, and how is Veritas Legal preparing for that transformation?
I think the law firm of the future will be significantly smaller in headcount, significantly more profitable per lawyer, and will look far more like a professional services firm than a traditional partnership. The leverage model, i.e, pyramids of associates doing high-volume, low-complexity work, is already under pressure and will not survive the decade in its current form. What I think will survive is firms with proprietary intelligence, institutional knowledge infrastructure, and a culture of continuous learning.

At Veritas, AI capability is being built with continuous education, calibrated adoption and strict governance protocol. The goal is that our AI infrastructure makes our lawyers better, not cheaper, our judgment more nuanced and not rushed and that clients pay a premium partly because of how thoughtfully we use it.

What qualities do you look for in young lawyers joining Veritas Legal, and how do you nurture them into future leaders of the profession?
This is an ever-evolving process. We need lawyers with intellectual curiosity and commercial instinct. With AI makes finding the answer easier, having a solid conceptual knowledge of law to judge whether the answer is right and what the AI answer has missed becomes the most important skill.

We look for an early ability to connect legal risk to business consequence. Other skills like resilience and comfort with ambiguity and ability to communicate well are also sought.

We also understand that the new generation is under pressure to perform on the metrics of knowledge of law, commercials, AI and tech fluency, so look for the most optimal combination and then let our culture and mentorship do the rest.